


General Fandom Meta and Wank

by Rachello344



Series: Tumblr Meta Essays [9]
Category: No Fandom
Genre: Crossposted from Rachello344 Blog, Fandom Analysis, Meta Essays, Nonfiction, wank
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2018-12-09
Updated: 2018-12-09
Packaged: 2019-09-15 05:41:31
Rating: Teen And Up Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 4
Words: 3,915
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/16927512
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Rachello344/pseuds/Rachello344
Summary: A collection of my general fandom meta posts and associated wank cross posted from my Tumblr drafts.





	1. Draft One

**Author's Note:**

> Since tumblr is rapidly going down hill, I've decided to put all of my essays on Ao3. It'll probably take a while, but I'll be posting each fandom's essays in their own work to collect them all in one place.

I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but I think the thing that baffles me most about ship hate is that it’s  _exhausting_.  Like, don’t get me wrong, there are some ships I can’t stand.  There are even ships I think are kinda gross or icky.  But I don’t have the spoons to be bothered by it anymore.  I’m 21 years old.  If I went out looking for every blog in favor of the ships I hate to argue about them, I’d exhaust myself almost immediately.  Same for if I tried to engage with all the antis in the world.  I’m not saying I won’t defend my corner, but outside of looking into stuff to assuage my curiosity, I don’t generally make the first move.

Starting an entire blog for a ship you don’t like is a level of interest in that ship I don’t think I can sustain.  My goal for ships I hate is always indifference.  There is nothing better than not caring about something you’re not interested in.  “Someone ships that?  Gross, but good for them or whatever.  Do we have chips, or are we out?”  Sometimes I want to fight, of course–often, even, because I’m naturally argumentative, if conflict-averse–but I don’t want people to be upset after talking with me.  I don’t want someone to walk away from me thinking, “This person didn’t listen to me.  She thinks I’m a joke.  She didn’t even hear me out.”  I always try to understand where people are coming from.  It’s why I never send hate, and why I keep my passive aggression in check when possible.

I know I get a little snarky sometimes, but well, it’s hard to hold back when I’m being disrespected myself.  At the very least, I try to consider each argument I’m presented with fully.  But the sheer  _hate_  involved in the anti stuff (on both sides, to be clear)…  It’s boggling.  Anti blogs never fail to remind me of  _The Scarlet Letter_.  They’re puritanical and restricting and often cruel.  Sometimes, it’s well-intentioned but misguided.  Sometimes it’s just cruel.  But people on both sides are always hurt, and they are always mean to each other.  They’re reductive and hurtful, lashing out at whoever happens to be on the other side.

Whether the anti blogs are real or jokes or trolls, it doesn’t matter.  Likewise, who the shippers are on the other side of the screen doesn’t matter either.  It’s just fighting for the sake of it, a holy war without a victor, a crusade against something nebulous at best.

It’s all just drama at this point, regardless of the initial intent.  I’m sure people have their hearts in the right place, but there’s no need to engage with the other side of things.  Talk about it with friends, privately.  Complain all you like.  Just keep everything in the appropriate tags (like you guys actually have been lately, surprisingly).  And do try to be kinder to each other?  I know none of us will ever see eye to eye.  No one will ever bend; no one will ever concede; there will always be something new to complain about.  But still, there’s no need to throw stones.

For those of you not involved, I hope it stays that way.  For those of you who are, consider taking a step back.  The person you’re arguing with and potentially insulting (in some cases I’ve seen) does probably exist somewhere.  Please consider keeping that sort of thing in a chat.  It’s in poor taste, don’t you think?

I just want to keep things civil even if we can’t agree.

Anyway, I hope everyone has a nice night.  Stay kind, and take care of yourselves.  <3


	2. Draft Two

I’ve said this before, and I’ll probably say this a thousand times:  I want more queer media, period.  I want good stuff and kinda shitty stuff.  I want things that are light and heavy, happy and sad and suspenseful.  I want drama and variety–the same variety that straight media has now.

That means that I want Quality Literature and Shitty Romcoms and Dark Shit.  So, honestly, I’m not especially big on getting huffy about quality, because right now I’m concerned with quantity.  And frankly, I love watching BLs and reading horror comics and finding queer YA novels.  I want it to be well-written and I want a lot of it to be positive representation, but mostly, I want it normalized.  I want to find a day where I turn on the TV and I have just as high a chance at finding a queer protag as a straight one.

I want it to be unremarkable.  I want so much queer rep, good and bad, that people can always find stuff in the genre they want.  I want spies and royals and baristas and heroes and villains.  I want EVERYTHING.  So for now, I’m going to enjoy my brain candy fluff pieces and my dark and suspenseful horror/romance and anything else I can find that I think I’ll enjoy.  And frankly, I want straight people (especially people who might one day question their sexuality) to have access to that media too.  I want to watch a romcom with my family and have it go unremarked that the couple turned out to be two boys or two girls or some other queer combo.  I want it queerness to be totally normalized and completely unremarkable.  We don’t have the liberty to be choosy now, not overall.  Of course we should be critical when possible, but at this point, I think more should be the focus.  Don’t hold queer creators on a pedestal, and don’t gatekeep who can create.  You don’t know their story.  Right now, with things as they are, more is always going to be better, no matter the comparative quality of the media.  If straight people can have shitty romances and action movies, so should we.


	3. Fandom Terms Glossary

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> This is still largely incomplete, as I was adding to it on and off, but regardless, here's an incomplete fandom glossary. I did the best I could with the definitions, but these are a bit rough still.

A glossary of fandom terms that have either been taken from literary criticism (incorrectly) or that I use that are either no longer in use or have… different definitions now.

If anyone has any terms they’d like to see added or words you come across that have confused you, please drop me a line.  I’d be happy to add to this whenever.

* * *

Discourse – Literally a discussion, like, the act of discussing.  That’s it.  More specifically, people will say, “the novel here participates in one of the many discourses on gender” or something like that.  Essentially linking one occurrence to a wider conversation.  Literature and Media do not exist in a vacuum, but neither can one work make a trend, but I’ll get to that.  
Just call it wank or meta.  Use the words we have, don’t take words from academia, especially when you don’t understand their context.

Romance – One of many genres of fiction.   **This is a story that centers around a romantic relationship between two or more characters.**   I could tell you about how all genres are crutches and constructs we assign to make ourselves feel better, but that might be moving too fast.  For now, what’s important is what a romance  _isn’t_.  A romance is NOT some kind of idealist model that must serve as a positive example for the Youth.  That would be Utopian Romance fiction (which is boring because stories need conflict, but that’s my own opinion on the matter).  A romance only needs the major plot conflicts to hinge around the romantic (as in not platonic, this could be love or lust or some combination thereof) relationships between its characters.  Pride and Prejudice is a romance.  Captive Prince is a romance.  The Foxhole Court, while  _containing_  a romantic subplot, is not a romance.  Harry Potter is not a romance.  A story can have romance without  _being_  a romance.  Compare romantic comedies with action movies, as an example.  But, don’t think that a romance can’t be tense or unhealthy or whatever.  Fifty Shades is also a romance, remember.  If you wrote out the Joker and Harley Quinn’s story, only focusing on them, their story would be a romance.  It’s more complicated than that, obviously, and there’s nuance, but I think you get the picture.  Regardless of your moral views on the love depicted, a romance is nothing more or less than a story about the development of a romantic relationship.

Fetishization – I hate seeing this word thrown around.  This literally means that something has been made into a fetish object on a cultural level.  You can have the fetishization of purity in American culture, for example.  And you can have the fetishization of homosexual relationships in pornography intended for heterosexual audiences.  However.  A single work of fiction is not fetishizing anything.  It may  _contribute_  to an overall trend, but this is not a word to use for single entities.  This is a  _cultural trend word_.  Sure, it can be used for subcultures, but whenever I see this word used, it’s used to mean that some work of fiction or other is bad for displaying a queer sexual relationship in any kind of (perceived) perverse way.  Please stop using this word incorrectly.  As a kind of burgeoning critical theorist (i.e. English grad student), it is incredibly frustrating.  You’re using words you don’t understand in ways that undermine the hard work being done by people in my field.  Unless you’re going to read Marx and Lukacs and learn what the word “reification” means, I think you should use another word.  
In most cases, what is  _meant_  is that some group people don’t like are showing an interest in something perceived as not belonging to them, whether that’s true or not.  I think if we unpack that a little, we can all find better ways to phrase things.  Fetishization is an accusation thrown around, not the analysis it’s meant to be.  And, frankly, it needs to stop.

Normalization – This is thrown around so often I hardly know where to begin.  This is not a word that can be used for a single object, again.  This is a word meant for trends.  For example, we could talk about the fact that male violence in our culture is normalized and so no longer taken as seriously as it should be.  A fictional work depicting something you don’t like in a way you perceive as positive and uncritical does not mean that it’s normalizing it.  A single crime procedural does not normalize crime.  You could say that the trend of always showing cops to be in the right, no matter the extreme actions they take, normalizes the liberties they take in the real world, making it difficult to speak out against police brutality and other such abuses.  But again, that’s the genre as a whole–procedural cop dramas could all contribute, but one of them is not going to be normalizing on its own.  That isn’t how that works.  
Just say that you find whatever it is unpleasant to read because of X or Y trope.  Or talk about how the TROPE is normalizing something.  That’s totally legitimate.  The trope of X normalizes Y behavior in Z culture/situation/etc. and this is harmful because W.

Romanticization – This does not mean that something bad is shown in a romantic light.  This is another big trend word.  Cultural myths about heterosexual marriage and related gender roles contribute to the romanticization of domestic abuse.  A single work of fiction depicting an abusive relationship in any kind of perceive positive light is not romanticizing abuse.  Cultural narratives about women needing to be convinced can romanticize the act of rape, especially from the male perspective.  One work of fiction cannot do this.  It has to be on at least a genre level, if not cultural or societal.  Again, subcultural too, but you have to make the argument apply outward.  
The BL/Yaoi trope of having a Seme character force an openly reluctant Uke character into sex romanticizes sexual assault.  One BL using the trope can contribute to it, but it isn’t romanticizing anything on its own.  It’s not powerful enough to be capable of that.

Wank – The word once used to describe what is now called “discourse.”  It’s usually a circle jerk of complaints about some fandom or another or the people in it.  Every example of so called discourse I have ever seen was actually just wank wearing a new hat.  Don’t put on airs or borrow credibility.  Call a spade a spade.

Meta – Analysis on a series or character.  Some of these are better reasoned than others, but the only way to truly rate them is in how well they use their evidence (and how much evidence they have) to support whatever claim they make.  These are often essays, but can be a couple paragraphs, sometimes with pictures as evidence along with quotes from the source.  Some “discourse” falls into this, but only very rarely.  Most people call meta either meta or analysis instead.

BNF – Big Name Fan.  This is THE person in your fandom, generally an artist, occasionally a fic writer or other content creator.  You’ll know them when you see them.  This is the person  _everyone_  follows.  Their headcanons are so widely accepted that they almost always become fanon (whether you like it or not).  Some of these people are super nice and use their powers for good.  Others can become divas, mad with the power the fandom has given them.  Regardless, there is almost always drama brewing around them (whether they like it or not, unfortunately).  
I recently saw some commenting on people actually asking other fans for permission to hold certain headcanons.  Someone with that power is a BNF.  That is a TRADEMARK of a BNF.  Their fandom credibility and respect is so high that people see them as some kind of authority figure.  Be wary of people who go along with this.  They’re not to be trifled with, and frankly, it’s safer not to engage.

TPTB – The Powers That Be, otherwise known as the writers/producers/creators of any given series.  These are the people that create Canon and produce Word of God.

Canon – Anything that explicitly happened in the confines of a series.  Basically, the events of any given series in whatever form the standard is.  I.E. episodes of a TV show, books in a book series, etc.

Fringe Canon – Works that are connected to the series in question, but not part of the standard form.  Often includes movies, novelizations, guide books, etc.  Can be considered canon, but isn’t something every fan will see/have access to, so can’t really be considered The Canon.  Can also includes things that are implicit in the text, so something that can be argued in meta but that not everyone will agree on.

Word of God – Something said by TPTB that remains outside of canon.  I.E. interviews, panels, and other things said at conventions or for PR.  Common mantra, “PR is not showrunning” meaning that Word of God often has little to do with what happens within the series.  
Example:  Some sub-textual evidence of Dumbledore being gay does not make his being gay canon (it makes it fringe canon, imo).  Rowling saying that he was gay in an interview is here considered Word of God.  You can take it or leave it, because no one in the series says the words “Dumbledore was gay” or any other variation that would make it explicit canon.

Headcanon – Something that you decide about a character.  This isn’t canon and often has no strong basis in canon.  It can include sexuality, gender, religion, favorite color, anything not covered by canon.  You can also have headcanons that contradict canon.

Fanon – Headcanons that have become Too Powerful.  These are things, good or bad, that have been accepted by a probably absurd number of people.  Some of these can be great, especially when the series has some seriously bad writing, but if you find yourself disagreeing, this can be the worst thing you ever have to deal with.  Especially when people who subscribe to it  _insist_  on its being canon…

Ship – Any feasible romantic relationship, canon or non-canon.  There are of course platonic variants, but those are usually specified (broship, brotp, etc.).  Most often two people, but more recently polyshipping has come into vogue.  
As a verb, to me, this implies that the relationship in question is non canon, and that you consume or produce fan content of the relationship.  Personally, I don't "ship" canon pairings, even if I like them a lot.

Canon Ship – The series endgame, usually (but not always) straight.  This is an  _explicit couple_.  They are in a relationship.  They kiss (or something) on screen.  You can still take it or leave it, but that doesn’t stop it from being canon.

Rare Pair – This is a ship that has some basis in canon, but is  _extremely unpopular_.  Some people include anything with less than a certain number of fic on Ao3, but it varies by fandom.  I’ve been into rare pairs with less than 10 fic written for them, so anything less than 500 still seems like quite a bit in comparison.  Your Mileage May Vary (YMMV), but you’ll know it when you see it.

Crack Ship – These people have probably never spoken.  There is no reason for them to be in a relationship other than the fan’s preference (often aesthetic or story-related).  A crack ship is often random and  _completely baseless_.  A crack ship is  _not_  simply a ship that won’t be canon.  Most ships will never be canon.  This goes beyond that into the ridiculous.  As a recent example, Keith x Zarkon would be a crack ship, while Keith x Hunk is perfectly reasonable (if rare).

Multi-shipping – Shipping characters together without a strong preference for one combination over another.  For example, shipping your fave with every possible romantic partner, not just one (or more, if in a polyship).  This includes Everyone x Character type things, not just “I could ship them with literally anyone.”  Both count.

OTP – One True Pairing.   _The_  ship you love above all others, canon or not.  For me, I have exactly one of these per fandom, but I know other people use it differently now.  This used to mean that you ship the thing  _exclusively_.  You might like art for other ships with the characters in this OTP, but you’re not  _that_  into it.  This used to be THE ship.  The characters in this OTP were not shipped with others, and other relationships were used for jealousy or plot reasons, not usually because you enjoy the other ships.  This is the ship you go to war about.

OT# – Same as above, but there are more than two people involved.  So, the one polyship you hold above  _all other ships_  (poly or not).

BrOTP – Platonic version of the above.  These are the ride or die friendships of the series.  You don’t see them as  _in_  love, but they absolutely love each other.  There’s devotion and loyalty and affection–or you just think their friendship is the best/greatest/funniest and you don’t see them ever ending up together romantically.  You want these characters to be BFFs, not lovers.


	4. Anti Blog Spotter's Guide

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> This is applicable to most blogging platforms c. 2016-2018, but especially and particularly tumblr. I hope these trends will stop altogether and anti ideology will vanish into the void, making this post obsolete, but that's neither here nor there. This is based on my own observations and is by no means complete or even always accurate.
> 
> I hope people will consider this a snapshot of fandom as I'm experiencing it as of December 2018.

I’ve been thinking about making this post for a while, so let’s get this started.  An incomplete list of the ways I identify antis.  A brief note before we begin:  Many of the traits on their own are totally harmless, but more than three or so marks a pattern.  Most of the time, they self identify, which is helpful, but anti ideology is rampant these days.  You can never be too careful.

A secondary note, I advocate for blocking antis, but if any of them change their mind, if they leave the ideology behind, I am all for welcoming them with open arms.  We all make mistakes, and we’re only human.

  * They call themselves an Anti, or in some cases an Anti Anti (Anti Antis are typically against antis in cases where they’re affected, but they might actually be an anti in a different fandom.  i.e. someone who ships Sheith, but is anti-BakuDeku might identify as an Anti-Anti even though they are themselves an Anti)  
  * Pastel Icon or a character with a particular pride flag overlaid (this one is obviously not always the case, but should be seen in conjunction with other things like username and content)
  * Character-Against-Thing (Thing = Pedophilia, Incest, Rape, etc.)
  * “It’s called having morals”
  * "Why can't you freaks be normal"
  * All things they hate in fiction directly tie in to sex and sexuality and romance.  No outrage against regular violence (except “abuse” which is a very broad category when wielded by an anti)
  * No redemption for any bad characters (except the ones they like)
  * You must classify your interest in anything problematic or else you condone said problematic thing
  * Thinks Ao3 condones and promotes Bad Fictional Content, but still uses Ao3 on the regular
  * “X relationship is abusive and will always only be abusive”
  * “X version of the relationship is BAD, I only support the healthier version, Y”
  * “ya nasties”
  * “Do not follow/interact” lists; seriously do not interact is like a huge flag for me, no matter who they’re apparently against interacting with them
  * “X is just another word for Y” (usually X being some Ao3 tag and Y being abuse, rape, incest, or some other word they can use to shut down the argument)
  * “Queer is a slur”
  * "kink critical"
  * “straight people are wild” or “all men are X” (X being abusers or something else negative; this is actually recycled exclusionist/radical feminist rhetoric, but none of them seem to notice that since they’re all “woke” and would never exclude anyone, except “nasty” people who deserve harassment and bullying)
  * “fujoshit” “fujoshis are fetishizing mlm”
  * Fetishize, romanticize, and normalize used all the time
  * “soft sapphic” “pure” “wholesome”
  * “it’s not censorship, it’s common sense”
  * “you can write your gross shit in some journal instead of exposing the rest of us to it”
  * “bad content can be used by abusers/predators to GROOM MINORS”
  * “think of the children!”
  * "Why do you/Just say you hate lesbians/gay men"
  * Responds to any and all arguments in the same way as all other antis, parroting their lines word for word.  Also, shuts down arguments with insults or pithy one liners.  (Largely performative outrage and virtue signaling.)
  * “it’s not bullying, it’s justifiable criticism.”
  * “if you write/draw gross shit, you should be held accountable” but they never go after the mainstream
  * “fiction affects reality” used as some kind of catchall
  * “block me if” instead of blocking on their own and curating their blogging experience
  * An apparent inability to use a tag blocker or exclude tags from the search results on Ao3.  Even knowing the Bad Content is there is apparently too much.
  * Generally 13-25 years old, genders and sexualities vary, although I’ve never seen an anti ID as queer.  If someone has, I’d actually be interested to hear more about that.
  * The two most common ships I’ve seen have been KL and KRBK but I’m sure there are others.
  * People who dropped Voltron for Dragon Prince and SheRa are almost all invariably antis.
  * People who think that there are no antis in My Hero Academia
  * In Voltron:  ships Klance, ships "Leakira", ships Shadam, Broganes Only.  frequently self-labeled as anti Pidge/other Paladins, anti Shiro/other Paladins, anti Shallura, anti Kallura, anti Lotura, anti Shidge, anti Sheith, and/or hates Allurance, Keith/Axca, or any of the above




End file.
